Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 403

Image Usage
Hi, I'm in the process of reversing a merge of some pages, and creating an individual article for each of the High schools in the Nebo School District. What regulations are there about using their respective logos in the infoboxes etc? Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, MrCrazyDude, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Generally the rule for Fair Use of copyrighted logos is that a low-resolution copy (200 pixels or thereabouts) is acceptable when used on the page of the organization whose logo it is. Note that logos generally cannot be uploaded to Commons, but must be hosted on Wikipedia proper, and must have a Fair Use rationale included. In the infobox, when the article has an infobox, is an excellent place for such a logo to be displayed. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify,, do you mean 200 pixels total, or approximate max. dimensions of 200 x 200 pixels? Thanks again, MrCrazyDude (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no specific size rule about logos, unlike album covers and other artwork. The fair-use rationale states "The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution." so a simple logo could be lower resolution but a complex one higher resolution, so it is not a splodge.  Please see Logos for the specific guidance. - Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * probably means about 200px in terms of one, the widest, dimension - this is usually the width. There is no specific rule, but the relevant guideline can be found at: WP:IMAGERES. My personal interpretation is that since the purpose of the image is to serve as identification in the infobox, the image should not be larger than the size it is rendered by the infobox. For instance, Template:Infobox school renders the image put in the  parameter at the width of 250px, so I would upload the image resized to 250px width. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, MrCrazyDude, I meant approximately 200 pixels in its longest dimension, and that figure was just a suggestion, not a rule. I should have stated that more clearly. I believe Finnusertop is correct that the display width for infobox images is 250px wide, so since that would probably be the only place the image would be displayed on Wikipedia, uploading a copy of each logo that is 250px wide seems to be the best idea. If you have already uploaded a larger or smaller version of any of the high schools' logos, you can use the "Upload a new version of this file" link to replace it with a 250px version. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 17:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline gives examples of 320x240 px and 250x400 px, making the longest dimension closer to 400 pxels, so 250px is definitely still on the safe side, but per the reasoning above, ideal for infoboxes. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with logo size in the infobox is that if it gets over approx 225px, it stretches the size of the infobox. Common practice on school articles is to limit the size to 180-200px. You can use the size paramater in the file. Example: |logo = John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unable to replicate this, . The infobox is of the same width with an image set to less than 250px (eg. 180) than it is with a larger image when no size is specified in . Setting   to wider than 250px, however stretches the box. Other than that, the template always renders the width of the infobox as if the image was 250px. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 10:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I'll proceed with the images then. Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , please note that you can't use the images in your sandbox (see NFCC#9. You should upload them only when your article is ready and in article space. In the meanwhile, you can use a placeholder image (eg. File:Example.svg) in your sandbox. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 11:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I didn't know that. Thanks again, MrCrazyDude (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm not MrCrazyDude but I do have to ask: can the final images be used instead of example images in Draft space versus User space? Cheers! &#123;&#123;u&#124; Checkingfax &#125;&#125; { Talk } 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, see the link already provided above to NFCC#9. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

where
where can i find some pages that need inproving have not seen any pages that need to be edited thanks Kaiwen0115 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Community portal features a frequently updated list of articles with specific problems you can help improve. I like to think of it as the starting point for everything related to the Wikipedia community, as it has helpful links to almost every community department. If you need help getting started, I recommend The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a fun, interactive introduction to contributing. For a more formal, less-interactive introduction, see Tutorial. If you have any questions, feel free to post here at the Teahouse again. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, copy this snippet of code and drop this code snippet on to your User talk:Kaiwen0115 page (go to your Talk page and click on 'Edit'):


 * and then Save it. In a few days, SuggestBot will drop a matrix of suggestions on your Talk page, and every week another matrix. Cheers! &#123;&#123;u&#124; Checkingfax &#125;&#125; { Talk } 03:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I delete irrelevant revision history on my talk page?
I was playing around with my talk page and seeing how things worked, but now I have a list of irrelevant revision history that I kind of just want to get rid of (I get obsessive about these kind of things)... Is there any way I can delete this revision history (consisting of edits from bots telling me things about the pages I've made and me just playing around)? Lawrencedepe (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but page histories usually remain in place unless there is a very good reason to delete them. Usually this is because of copyright violations, libellous material, trolling, or personal information being revealed.  The only "housekeeping" is fixing mistakes from deleting page revisions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe there are two levels of history refactoring or redaction:
 * - Hide it from view by an admin/sysop.
 * - Delete it from the servers by a super user.


 * Cheers! &#123;&#123;u&#124; Checkingfax &#125;&#125; { Talk } 03:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And the first one still has the dashed out revision in the history so that people know that something was blocked out. The second option usually only comes up if US or international law were broken. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify what Checkingfax was getting at, standard revision deletion allows an administrator to hide a specific revision of a page from view by all non-administrators. A higher level of this is called "oversight", which hides a revision from view by all editors, including administrators, except for a group of highly trusted users called functionaries; specifically, the functionaries that have access to oversight. These special functions are performed in accordance with the revision deletion policy and the oversight policy, respectively. I suppose that theoretically, a Wikimedia Foundation system administrator could go directly into the servers and delete a revision or log entry directly and permanently, but this is practically never done and there is no procedure for this on the English Wikipedia. Additionally, as Ian.thomson mentioned, user talk pages are almost never deleted, and revision deletion is rarely employed for user talk pages, except to protect a user's privacy, or to redact harassment and particularly egregious conduct violations (see the policy page linked earlier for the specific criteria). Lawrencedepe, I took a quick glance at your user talk page history, and unfortunately, I don't see any material that would qualify for either revision deletion or oversight. Best, Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate level of complexity/detail in overview or lede
I am wondering if there is a guideline that establishes the appropriate level of the above.

The issue relates to the question: if a reasonably smart and/or educated person reads any (except the most specialized) article(s) should he/she be able to get a significant grasp of it from the overview or lede sections? I expect that for various concepts within various specialties the answer is no. But I do run into articles about subjects that are not that complex, yet it seems one would have to already be quite familiar with the topic to make sense of the lede. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the WP Teahouse. Here are two helpful articles:


 * 1) - [[MOS:LEAD]] (an official WP guideline -- but not a policy)
 * 2) - [[WP:CREATELEAD]] (an unofficial but linked essay created by Wikipedia editors to interpret MOS:LEAD in easier terminology)


 * Here is a banner we can add if an article is too technical, but we should also explain our concerns on the article Talk page as well (otherwise it's what is called 'drive-by tagging'):




 * I hope this helps. Cheers! &#123;&#123;u&#124; Checkingfax &#125;&#125; { Talk } 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The articles are good but don't address the issue of the appropriate level of audience to assume, for at least the lead.  I know many subjects are inherently technical and that the response to the suggested tag might well be a reminder that it is just one of those subjects. I can try inserting the tag and make a corresponding talk-page entry and see what happens. But, I sort of expected nothing to change overall if there is no general policy about article leads being comprehensible to the layman. Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . There is an essay available at WP:Writing better articles that has some useful advice that is relevant to your questions:


 * "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article."


 * In my opinion, the lead section of an article should be written so that it can be read and understood by most intelligent high school students. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Alpha Kappa Omicron
User:Naiele3 has asked me on my talk page about my decline of the submission of Draft:Alpha Kappa Omicron, which I declined as showing insufficient independent evidence of notability. I am willing to discuss it here with the author and with other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  Good decline.The draft as it stands clearly has no significant coverage by reliably published third party sources. I have done no searching to see if such coverage exists somewhere, but if it does, it is not in evidence on that draft. In fact it is far closer to the WP:G11 side of the scale than a valid article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did do some searching for sources a few days ago when I first became aware of the draft. While my search was not exhaustive, and it's possible that offline sources that could establish AKO's notability exist, I was satisfied that significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources does not appear to exist online. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with Fraternities and Sororities is that most of them want to keep their information "secret", and get upset if people publish any information about them, especially their code words, signs, etc. - but they get equally upset that, as there are no published independent, reliable sources they do not meet our general notability guideline - Arjayay (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's certainly not a lot out there. Enough to confirm it, and the chapters, exist - and that they have done some fund-raising. This page didn't load for me, perhaps others will have better luck.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC).


 * I think that we are all saying more or less the same. Confirming that an organization exists does not confirm that it meets the general criteria for notability.  An advertisement by an urban boutique for its products in a neighborhood newspaper confirms that it exists.  It doesn't confirm that it is notable, given that hundreds of thousands of boutiques exist in cities in the United States.  This is a non-profit social version of the boutique problem, in my opinion.  (The banner on my talk page tells editors that, if I have declined a submission, they are invited to come here and discuss with other experienced editors.  Other AFC reviewers might want to offer a similar message.  After all, AFC reviewers shouldn't want to be acting personally, but as representatives of the experienced editors of the community, and if I make a mistake in declining, I welcome another editor accepting it instead.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite so. By the way, the information that such organizations usually want to keep "secret" wouldn't contribute much to notability even if it were published, in my view. (see Iron Ring for a group that keeps details of its ceremonies private, but is nonetheless notable.) What would is coverage of things such groups have done, or independent writing about the group. I actually suspect that such writing does exist offline, dating from decades ago when such groups were more central to the College experience, but that is just a guess. DES (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "paper only coverage" is unlikely to apply in this instance, as it was only founded in '97 (1997, not 1897) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So I read some helpful and some not so helpful comments on this. What would be most helpful is a clear definition of what is considered notable. I read these notability pages and link, but they pretty much go way too in-depth and on tangents. I just need a clear cut list on what I should use and a simple justification as to how it makes the article notable. Just so that I don't get another run around. Like I said before, I was told on a talk page that school newspapers were notable enough, but that does not seem to be the case. Naiele3 (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Unfortunately, there are often not "clear definitions" of this sort of thing, as Wikipedia works by consensus. The requirement on sources is that they be reliable and independent. Reliability of a source is not absolute: a source can be regarded as reliable for some purposes, and not for others. The general requirement for reliability is that there is editorial control over the source, with a reputation for fact-checking. On this basis it would be unusual for a school newspaper to be regarded as reliable for any Wikipedia purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

DOI value citation errors
Can anyone figure out how to fix the DOI value errors seen for two of the references for the draft article in my sandbox here? I suppose these are not proper "10. registry identifiers", but I've had no luck figuring out how to fix them. The abstracts, where I took the DOI names from, are here and here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I fixed the first. Still no luck with the second.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I pounded it from several different angles but it vexed me. The link-through says the doi lacks a proper prefix. I tried several doi combos and they all failed. I added a url= to that citation so at least readers can click-through to the doi abstract. I did some other minor citation fixes on the page. I also rem'd out the Categories with a colon instead of with the nowiki so I could see if your chosen categories would go "live". Category:Birds of Burma is not a valid category so it appears as a redlink. I know you're more expert than me, but I find it helpful to use HotCat (a Gadget) to add categories on a Draft page, then go in and rem them out with a colon. Sorry I couldn't fix the doi issue, but I did tag it with doi access issue date. I did made several helpful minor changes so don't roll back my edits. Cheers! &#123;&#123;u&#124; Checkingfax &#125;&#125; { Talk } 22:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Checkingfax: Thanks for trying. That gives me some measure of confidence it's a problem with the doi they provide there and not with what I and you tried. Though the doi would be preferable, I'll just use the pdf url (rather than the abstract url) before going live with the draft. Theoretically, I would never rollback your edits – I would just revert them;-) but there would be no reason to do so here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actress with same name.
There are two Ishita Sharma in Bollywood. Ishita Sharma already has her page. The other who acted in Pyaar Ka Punchnama and Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2 doesn't have her page. This is creating confusion among users. It's weird that IMDB has combined the filmography of both the actresses and created a single page. Bollywood Hungama has separate page for both of them. Ishita Sharma 1  and Ishita Sharma. This is the picture of Ishita Sharmafrom Pyaar Ka Punchnama who doesn't have her page. And this is the picture of Ishita Sharma who has her page. The Avengers (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC) If you want to write an article about the "other" Ishita Sharma, the titles will need to be disambiguated. You need to pick the clearest difference between them, this might be the year of their birth, their other abilities, or their preferred medium. If the existing article is about one who is significantly better known, it should stay where it is and the new article given the alternative title e.g. Ishita Sharma (singer) Both articles should then have a hatnote linking to the other article. If they are both moderately well known, to avoid arguments about who is more famous, rename the existing page e.g. Ishita Sharma (dancer) or Ishita Sharma (born 1988) and make Ishita Sharma into a disambiguation page. For more information please see WP:Disambiguation - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an unusual problem, until we have an article on the "other" Ishita Sharma I suggest you add a "confusion" section to the existing page stating there are two actresses with the same name, who are often confused, using IMDB as an example, and listing the films the "other" one has done. However, this will need references from reliable sources, including at least one that states they are not the same.
 * (edit conflict) Hi The Avengers, welcome to the Teahouse. If the one we don't have an article about was born in YYYY and not the same year as the other then the article name could be "Ishita Sharma (actress, born YYYY)" per Naming conventions (people). Both with and without an article about her, mentions of her can use the link  which renders as Ishita Sharma. If the name is left unlinked then editors may later make a wrong link to the Ishita Sharma with an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arjayay Both are Bollywood actresses. The one with article does arthouse movies and small budget movies. The one who don't have a page has done two comedy movies which are more popular. The senior actress has an article but she has less popularity among public. I don't have any knowledge about their date of birth. No one is a dancer or singer, both are Bollywood actresses. I will have to E-Mail IMDB about this. As anyone can submit IMDB update (I have done it myself); the fans of Ishita Sharma without Wikipedia article added filmography on the existing IMDB page of the senior Ishita Sharma who is less popular. The IMDb filmography of the new Ishita Sharma who has more fan following needs to be separated. The Avengers (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Avengers - On what reliable source are you basing your claim "The senior actress has an article but she has less popularity among public." ?? Without a reliable source, this is just your point of view, which simply does not count. This is why I said "to avoid arguments about who is more famous", as, unfortunately, Indian cinema articles are prone to arguments and infighting - trying to promote one actor/actress above another.


 * If you cannot establish basic facts about the "other" Ishita Sharma; like her Date of Birth, where she is from, and what other skills she has, all based on reliable sources, she may not be notable enough for her own article. You have said neither is a dancer, but the existing article states Ishita Sharma is a Kathak dancer - what attributes does the other Ishita Sharma have? I do not think we should call her a "comedy actress", and the existing one as an "arthouse actress". as their roles could easily change in the future. - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I found out now that, The second Ishita Sharma is aware of this confusion and she has changed her name to Ishita Raj though Indian Media still prefers her as Ishita Sharma. If you check the URl it's Ishita.sh (short for Sharma} https://www.facebook.com/ishita.sh. The one with Wikipedia page don't have her page verified and has less likes. https://www.facebook.com/OfficialIshitaSharma . There is no reliable source that one is popular than other. I wrote that above to explain the situation. Anyway i found a way to deal with this situation.The Avengers (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Message reading: "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification..."
Hello Hello,

I received the above message on the top of my article on Gerald Schwarz (mathematician) and proceeded to verify all claims with credible references, such as peer-reviewed articles, books, professional websites and the like.

The message remains, and I don't know what to do to either: (1) remedy the situation with additional references, if that's what the reviewer is looking for;  or, (2) have the message removed, if it is no longer applicable. Can you help? Thank you. Margery 146.115.137.115 (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, Margery. In my opinion, the article now has adequate references. As the article is now in main space, it is no longer being actively reviewed. Any editor can add such tags if they feel that an article has problems, and any editor can remove tags if the problems are resolved. I removed the tag, and added the article to a category. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation Warning
How do I submit my oage for review, so as the citation warning is removed from my page Alanryanlimerickireland (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I have removed one of the tags from Jackie Ryan since the article now has more references. I left the other because the article still has problems with tone and style. Please read about the neutral point of view. The article has promotional words and phrases in Wikipedia's voice, such as "first taste of All-Ireland glory", "fierce excitement", and "peerless", to give just a few examples. It is OK to include such evaluative language in a direct quote from a reliable source, but otherwise, your prose should be dry and factual. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What to do against someone who tries to distort facts?
I am new to wikipedia. Although account is not new but started using it from last few months. So, recently I edited a page because it clearly had wrong information. But a guy frequently undoes my edit. Few days back he came to my talk page and started saying my edit is not constructive and I should read guideline and so so! But I clearly showed him the proofs behind my edit, still he is adamant to accept the facts. Now as I am new, I have some limitations but I can say my edit is 100% correct (even ready to show proof).

Now what can I do against his vandalism? Amfmaads (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC) (Amfmaads (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not refer to a content dispute as vandalism. Calling an edit with which you disagree vandalism merely because you disagree is a personal attack.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Amfmaads, and welcome to the Teahouse.


 * First, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. This means you should not assume another editor's motivation is vandalism, even if they make edits you disagree with.


 * Second, I have looked at the edit history of List of Nobel laureates by country, and it appears to me that Filpro's edits there are correct. If someone is born in a country they are generally considered to be of that nationality, unless they take the extreme step of renouncing their citizenship. This does not preclude that person from having another nationality as well, such as one inherited from a parent, or gained when their country of birth changes name or status. For example, Freddie Mercury was born in what was Zanzibar in 1946, but Zanzibar merged with Tanganyika to become Tanzania in 1964.


 * So, unless your proof is that the Nobel laureates in question were not born in places that were part of India at the time of their birth, you should stop reverting Filpro's edits.


 * I hope this has clarified things for you. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)p

Atfirst, I am sorry for my presumption. Now coming to the point, this case is not as simple as you explained. I hope you have a good knowledge about Indian Subcontinent and Partition of India. After partition, those who were in Pakistan or migrated to Pakistan had renounced their Indian citizenship. They instead took up new citizenship of being Pakistani. Same thing occurred after 1971 in Bangladesh(People of then East Pakistan gave up their Pakistani citizenship with a exception of few). It wasnt like that after 1947 partition, all the people of Pakistan retained their Indian citizenship along with being Pakistani. Thus, although Abdus Salam and Muhammad Yunus were born in India, they are Pakistani and Bangladeshi respectively. Here is an Indian Newspaper which gave the list of Indian Nobel Laureates : http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-nobel-prize-winners-in-pictures

And also to remember India before 1947 is not the same India as today. It was under British rule, governed by Government of India Act.

The citizenship process you mentioned is not applicable for all countries. For example, the country we were talking about, India, does not allow dual citizenship. Amfmaads (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * At the top of the article, Amfmaads, it says:
 * "Some laureates are listed under more than one country, because the official website mentions multiple countries in relation to the laureate. If a country is merely mentioned as the place of birth, an asterisk(*) is used in the respective listing to indicate this. In this case, the birth country is mentioned in italics at the other listings of this laureate. For the same award, two birthplace related listings occur when the place of birth is currently in a different country than at the time of birth." (emphasis added to indicate that Wikipedia goes by what countries the Nobel Committee says laureates are from)
 * These conventions have been established by consensus among a number of other editors, and it is poor form to change such established formats just because you personally disagree with them. If you think you have a compelling argument for why the article's listing conventions should be changed, the way to proceed is to post about it on the article's talk page. Then other editors can discuss the matter with you, and develop a new consensus. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. Thatswhy, if you see the list of Bangladesh and Pakistan where Muhammad Yunus and Abdus Salam are listed, you can see their birthplace details is mentioned(like born in then India, now ...), exactly the same way Nobel Committee says they are from. And as you said, birthplace related listing should be done, then there should be separate list for USSR, Ottoman Empire etc.

And it is clear, the thing is not what I agree or disagree but the thing is I am talking about facts. Didnt you see the proof I have given you? Amfmaads (talk) 12:5, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to discuss the issue on the article talk page, and, if that does not resolve the dispute, you can follow one of the procedures for content disputes, such as moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Robert McClenon Amfmaads (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem fixing references on Bot Colony article
I've made some edits to the Bot Colony article. There seem to be problems with the references at the end of the article, but as I started editing today, I'm not yet able to deal with them. Sensebased (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorted. One misspelled named reference, one named reference that had been deleted in a previous edit (reinstated).-- Elmidae (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Greater Long-eared bat
Hi I have just edited a page for the Greater Long-eared Bat but I think it should have done a new page for the South-eastern Long-eared Bat - Nyctophilus corbeni. I had to do this for a university assessment and once I started I thought it really should have it's own page. What should I do? The assignment is due now, and will have to leave on the page for the present but how can I rectify it so the South-eastern Long-eared Bat has it's own page?

Jane Bailey-Crass (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jane Bailey-Crass, and welcome to the Teahouse. To create the new article, visit the Article wizard page and follow the instructions there. You should be able to use much of the content you put in the other article into the new one. Unlike school, at Wikipedia there is no deadline, so worry about your assignment first, and then build the article. (Also, it's its own page, not it's own page.) — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 23:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How to get a translation of a Wikipedia page into English done most effectively
Hello,

I started to create an article on the 2015 European Heat Wave - there is an excellent article on the German Wikipedia, at URL https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitzewellen_in_Europa_2015.

I would like to take substantial amounts of the content there, translated, and put on the English page - I made a start and submitted the article, granted it was only a start with a few % of the full content, but all I had time for.

How could I get an article accepted which already had the structure that I think would be relevant, so that other enthusiastic editors could chip in ?

Thanks for your suggestions Breggen (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Breggen, and welcome to the Teahouse. Translating articles from other-language Wikipedias is a great idea. To credit the editors at the other project porperly, include  in the References section of the English article. Note that in order to be acceptable here, an article must be cited to reliable sources; the German Wikipedia wouldn't count, but the sources it cites might. You're welcome to list German-language sources in articles on English Wikipedia, though of course English-language sources are appreciated. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 23:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to be a Host
Hi!

I want to be a Host.But how?How to be a host? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladoVenCoogan2 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (moved to top of page and given section heading by GrammarFascist   contribs talk)
 * Hello, VladoVenCoogan2, and welcome to the Teahouse. To become a Teahouse host, one should first be a very experienced editor who knows the answers to the kinds of questions people ask here. Since the only edit you've ever made using this account was this question, I think you should wait until you've learned your way around Wikipedia a bit first. There's no particular prestige or privileges Teahouse hosts get, by the way; it's just a lot of work they do out of the goodness of their hearts. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 05:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Septimus Servus and omar al mukthar on the berber people page
Septimus servus wasn't a berber he was a punic a mixture of Phoenician and and berber on his father side and on his mother roman

so why is he listed as a berber if hes a phonenician hybrid?

Now for omar I noticed on the page it says omar was a berber but that's false because he is an Arab omar al mukthar was a Arab  hes from the Mukthar tribe which trace there roots to Saudi Arabia

I found it as fraud by having him listed under Berber peoples because he is not of berber orginArabAmazigh12 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * People can be of more than one ethnicity. You yourself said Septimus Servus was "a mixture of Phoenician and and Berber on his father['s] side"; 1/4 Berber is still Berber. Presumably Omar al Mukthar has Berber ancestry as well and that is why another editor listed him as Berber on Wikipedia. Remember that reliable sources are required for all facts in Wikipedia articles. You would need to find a source that stated al Mukthar had only Arab ancestry, or that said conclusively that he was not Berber. A source that says he was Arab would be irrelevant, because he could have been both Arab and Berber. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I get what your :) So why not just make a Page for Arab-Berber people of both mixtures that way there wont be any editing problems?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusing article titles
I wanted some help to make the titles less confusing Asad Ali, Ali Asad, Ali Asad Abbas and Asad Ali Khan. I found an article that was mislinked and believe there might be some more. To add to the misery the first three are Pakistan born cricketers.srini (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I am not really sure what your question or proposal is. We utilize the WP:COMMONNAME, even if there are other similar names that might be confusing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Assyrian people census
OK so I found one of our pages has a census taken in 2008-2010

it says there are 900,000-1,900,000 assyrians in Syria and 700,000-1,500,000 in Iraq and than in America there are 800,000-1,000,000 of Assyrian descent

So the question is why on the Assyrian people page it says otherwise it states there are only 400,000 in Syria and 300,000 in Iraq but in the 2010 census the assyrians make up 5% of iraqs pop and 9% of Assyria now that would mean there population is 4.2 million or maybe around that so why hasn't anyone brought this up its an Important issueArabAmazigh12 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, ArabAmazigh12, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whenever you find a factual error on Wikipedia, you're not just welcome but encouraged to fix it... provided you have a reliable source for the new information, and you cite that source in the article along with your correction. If there are different reliable sources that give different information, both sources should be mentioned and cited, for balance. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 03:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ok so I get the Reference from the other page which has the 2008-2010 census on it and use that as a ref?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Many, perhaps most, Assyrians have fled from Iraq and Syria in the last few years. This should be mentioned if you cite a five-year-old census. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Uninformed freebase accusations:John Blackburne.
It should come to your notice you did not quantify your argument in any form. The editing I performed was all bona fide re the spelling prompts my computer algorithm provided. Perhaps you might be so kind as to point out my exact level of incompetence and also who you are. Yours faithfully, Sudaama90Sudaama90 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is best the place to answer this but in general you should not edit the comments of other editors on talk pages, whatever the reason. There are a few exceptions, such as to remove damaging content which cannot be fixed any way. Comments are often removed when they are no longer needed, perhaps after a few months, or when the page gets too long, or even very quickly on high traffic pages such as Main Page/Errors. But they should not be changed by other editors. If they are unclear you can ask the writer for a clarification. Otherwise leave them as they are. See Talk page guidelines, in particular #Others' comments on that page.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sudaama90 another policy to be aware of is regarding National varieties of English - so please don't start just correcting things for your local spelling preferences. KylieTastic (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Several of your changes in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhilosophy&type=revision&diff=686334185&oldid=683729186] would also have been wrong and damaging in articles. For example, you changed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. But Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a link to an article about an encylopedia with that exact name. You broke the link, and even if it had just been an isolated word, you changed an American to a British spelling for an article about an American subject. This is against Manual of Style. Some of your other changes were also from valid American spelling to British. In the case of  to , you also broke the markup since the American "color" is the only valid spelling in HTML. Other errors included to change "etc." to "etcetera." mid-sentence. The period indicates an abbreviation and shouldn't be used for the full word "etcetera". Using a spell checker to make changes is dangerous when you don't really know what you are doing. And "etc." is perfectly fine and more common anyway. You also changed veridicality to verification. Maybe your spell checker doesn't know the word veridicality and it or you guessed at something similar sounding. You also made some correct changes but all in all, you did more damage than good. But since it was discussion posts by others and none of the minor errors were a problem, you shouldn't have made any of the changes per Talk page guidelines which was linked in JohnBlackburne's post at User talk:Sudaama90. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @KylieKlasticTalk Thank you. Elsewhere I've said I wont interfere with peoples' Talk. I understand my errors re US and UK or AU English, so do regret making a hash up. Sudaama90 (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How to change the title of an article?
This is about the article Morisco rebellions in Granada. As agreed earlier this year, I have amplified this substantially, mainly on the basis of the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia and also from my own researches and with help from knowledgeable Spanish contacts.

I think the present title should be changed, and I propose "REBELLIONS OF THE MOORS (MORISCOS) IN THE KINGDOM OF GRANADA"

This is because:

a) Few people know who were the "Moriscos"; also, this was the term used by the Catholics for "converted" Moors, and the rebels were in fact rising against forced conversion. But it is important to keep it as a keyword.

b) "Granada" is too vague: it could be taken to mean just the city, but the rebellions extended throughout the "Kingdom".

I think I cannot myself change the title, and am not getting any reaction on my "Talk Page", so I would like guidance.

Bergerie (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , such a move should be proposed on Talk:Morisco rebellions in Granada, that has not been done. Personally, I would oppose it, briefer article titles, if reasonably accurate, are generally better.
 * That article currently has a number of uncited statements of opinion, such as "here was little or no follow-up in terms of explaining Christianity: indeed, the priests themselves were mostly too ignorant to do so". These should be cited or removed. the first two entries in the Notes section are self-references and should be removed or perhaps moved to the article talk page. The same is true for some of the content in the Sources section, neither the English- nor the Spanish-Language Wikipedia should be mentioned. DES (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have created a couple of redirects at: Moorish rebellions in Granada and Rebellions of the Moors in Granada.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

About page creation named OrbitalV
I created page with this name and deleted. Its basically a new coming social media platform with active domain but its stable release is in next month. Please would you help me why i couldn't create page of this type with this name Iahmedali (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * hello and welcome to the teahouse.
 * The company/product/website is inappropriate subject for a Wikipedia article because it fails the criteria - that third party reliable sources have found the subject worth discussing in a significant manner. Wikipedia is neither a directory of products nor s promotional platform. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia basically involves encyclopedic content and should not be confused with updating new products or companies. Although such names may become notable with time and require a page of their own but for now it is too soon. JugniSQ (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Really thanks sir and let me know one more thing you mean when the company get enough popularity then it could be possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iahmedali (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If the company gets enough popularity, as proved by articles about it in newspapers etc., then it could be possible, yes. Maproom (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it is wrong to think about it in terms of "popular" - what we want is coverage by third parties. It could come from "popular" or "unpopular" or "unique features" or "grand security failure" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gold albums in the 70's
I noticed that Kiss Alive has been only certified gold, in the seventies doesn't that mean when a band sold one million copies they received a gold disc, this was before platinum awards? How many copies has it really sold over the years?(John Brown 14:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardrock 4171 (talk • contribs)


 * @Hardrock 4171: I think your question would be better asked at the Help desk. The Teahouse is primarily for questions about editing problems. The Help Desk is more like a library help desk. White Arabian mare  ( Neigh ) 15:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare


 * Actually this is probably better asked at the reference desk.--ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar
Hello! I just started an article and I'm wondering how to add a right hand side bar with image? Please let me know! Thanks!

NutramPetProducts (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe Help:Infobox may be useful to you. Let us know if we can help you with anything in that which is unclear. --LukeSurlt c 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tariq ibn zayid labeled a berber
How are we certain if no one knows his true orgins there are more than one claim some say he was a from Persia others say he was a Kindi Arab others say he was a slave from Egypt there 4 claims on his orgins And knowing that Arabs say he was from the kindah tribe while berber say he was from them so we cant claim his orgins on the berber page right?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed Tariq ibn Ziyad from the gallery of pictures on Berbers. Thank you for your input. --LukeSurlt c 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Berber page Relation portin
I was curious why someone put that the berbers were related to the picts if theres no evidence I kept looking for sources and I didn't find any so its been changed ive never heard of such a thing anyways and another thing was that the sami people my question is how could the sami people be related to the Berbers if there indo-europeans and berbers are Afro-asiatic if that is so than why Arent the Chechen and kurdish people placed as related to arab when there is a genetic evidence Through the Y-Dna  I just got alittle bit confusedArabAmazigh12 (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . If you think a page can be improved, you are welcome to improve it, preferably with links to reliable published sources. If there is something on a page which is unsourced and you think it is wrong, you may certainly remove it - but I recommend explaining why in your edit summary, so that nobody mistakes your edit for vandalism.
 * Alternatively, especially if you are questioning what's there but not sure, the article's talk page is a good place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

On changing a typo in the article title
Hi, I am looking for advice on changing a typo that I made on to the title of one of the first wikipages I created. I misplaced a parentheses. It should read "Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act (FACT Act) of 2015 but instead says " Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act (FACT) Act of 2015." The typo makes it inaccurate and difficult to find. I can not seem to find a way to edit the title at the top. I would appreciate any advice.

Thanks,

Legaleagle00 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it be Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015?--ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually as it's still a Bill, should it even be referred to as an Act in its title?--ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, "Act" is part of the proper title of the legislation, not being used as a description here. Do you know of any way I can make the simple edit to the title to correct the typo? Legaleagle00 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK thanks - I was coming at this from the UK practice where Bills are formally titled as Bills until they are passed by Parliament and have received the Royal Assent. See WP:MOVE - I'll do it now if you confirm that the correct title should be Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015.--ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be correct. Thank you for your help. I will make sure I am more careful before saving next time. Sincerely, Legaleagle00 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅--ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Making a Lasting Contribution to Wikipedia
When judging the lasting impact of journalism, Wikipedia is important. I'm a publisher or editorial adviser for several independent news magazines that cover technology, the arts, or general news. It's my mandate to make journalism better. So much of journalism today seems driven by sensationalism, advertorial or plutocracy (so many major and regional newspapers have been bought by billionaires). My question is, how do I align independent journalism with Wikipedia's goals so we create the right content to make a lasting contribution to Wikipedia? Is there anyone able to help me with that?Robin Rowe (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Robin Rowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's goal is to provide neutral information about notable topics that have already been written about in reliable sources. Journalism, even independent journalism, typically has different goals. Are you saying that you want the news magazines you are affiliated with to follow Wikipedia's policies, such as No Original Research or The Golden Rule? If so, you can just have the writers you work with read about and adhere to the policies in question. Wikipedia is not a journalism site, although Wikinews is. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 23:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Among Wikipedia's main goals is to disseminate content under free license. If the publications you work with could make as much of their material&mdash;not just magazine article text, but also audiovisual media&mdash;available under a free license (Wikipedia likes Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0, but there are others) or in the public domain, that would be both supportive of Wikipedia's mission, and would provide a source of media that could be used on Wikipedia and in related projects.
 * Quality content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse would be more likely to have "lasting impact" than content encumbered by intellectual property law, which may make such content inaccessible for otherwise appropriate use. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a place to request translation help e.g. a pool of volunteers?
I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation#Requesting_a_translation_from_a_foreign_language_to_English and added the template to a stub I contributed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Brit_Barkmin. I tried a machine translation of the German source http://translate.google.com/translate?&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGun-Brit+Barkmin&sl=de&tl=en but it isn't good enough to figure out the meaning (What on earth does "Both parents went to sea and developed a fondness for Swedish name." mean for example?) Is there anywhere on wiki that I can contact a native English speaker who also speak German? Or failing that a German speaker who speaks reasonable English? SageGreenRider (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . The page Translators available lists links to lists of editors available to help by language. (The page is the "Translators" link in the "Translation Department" box at the top of the Translation page. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I missed that link. I guess my eye was drawn down the page and away from the side bar. Thanks again. SageGreenRider (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may also want to check out WikiProject Echo and WikiProject Intertranswiki, both of which have resources and volunteers. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks! SageGreenRider (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Invisible comments etiquette
What is the etiquette on invisible comments? Should they be used for suggestions for improvements to specific parts of an article (sentences, etc.) or should those be saved for the talk page? --AstroEngiSci (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean edit summaries? Generally edit summaries are for summarising (and occasionally justifying) your own edits for the benefit of others. If you have something substantive to say to other editors (such as comments and suggestions) talk pages are much better. --LukeSurlt c 16:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, LukeSurl, I'm actually talking about the invisible comments that only appear in VisualEditor and in the HTML source. There's one in this response. --AstroEngiSci (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. A talk page comment will be almost always be preferable to doing that. --LukeSurlt c 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with LukeSurl. A talk page comment will usually be preferable. But you can use an html comment in an article to say something like "36 is correct, not 37, as there was no year 0 A.D." Maproom (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In my view, the main (and possibly only) use for these is to give a would-be editor a warning that something in the article has been agreed by a consensus on the talk page, and to look at that (and possibly its archives) before changing it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I frequently use them to flag where unsourced birth dates have been contested and removed so that anyone attempting to insert a date knows that they are responsible for providing a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I often use them. For example when a new user asks for their draft to be evaluated and it's fairly clear by the context they will be looking at the code, these kind of notes are good for flagging certain issues like "blah blah blah Recently, ... " Or say you are copyediting an article upon request, as a result of a peer review, and so forth, and in your edits you can't fix something because you don't have access to the source or what is meant is unclear but you are fairly certain the main contributor will see it (e.g., diff).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't see uploaded photo . ..
I tried to upload a photo to the page "Toumey Woods." I clicked the "Talk" tab on the article's front page, and the page that loaded had a request on it to upload a photo. I went through the upload menu accessed right on the Talk page and appeared to successfully upload my image. However, the image is not showing on the page, so I have no idea where the image is or how to get it to appear on the intended page.

Ideas? Thanks much. WR1951 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)



Add the following to wherever you want.

- Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 22:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Apparently I should have copied this code when I first uploaded? This was my first uploaded image so I must have missed a crucial direction. WR1951 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are now two copies of the image there, one in the infobox and one in the body of the article. And there's one on this Teahouse page. Maproom (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I added it to the infobox [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toumey_Woods&diff=686570571&oldid=686570062] at nearly the same time as WR1951 added it lower down. I think it looks better at top in the infobox so I removed the lower copy. You haven't done anything wrong. Uploading an image and adding it to pages are completely separate actions, and an uploaded image may be displayed in 0, 1 or more pages.   is general code which can be added anywhere in a free space. See more at Picture tutorial ("tutorial" is maybe a poor name for a detailed page like that). Many infoboxes can add an image inside the infobox like I did but the way varies a little with the used infobox. The page for the infobox usually has documentation like Template:Infobox protected area. I have removed the image request. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)